The fight against
corruption was the most important message in your election campaign last
year. This fight is worth all possible respect. But I have some questions on
how it has worked in practise.

Slovenia is a beautiful
and interesting country with great natural potential within
the hospitality industry. But the hospitality sector is not even close
European standards. And the most important group, which should be the
shining star of Slovenia, the Sava Turizem, is even further behind. Why is
this big asset of yours not better taken care of?

The owner of Sava Turizem, the Sava d.d. - a pure
holding company - has borrowed extensively in the banks. Still the hotels
in Sava Turizem have not been able to invest to remain competitive. How
comes that the holding company is over-indebted but the
hotels under-invested? Where has the money gone?

The credits taken by
Sava d.d. are bigger than they can ever pay back to the banks. Taxpayers
will pay the difference. The company’s equity is negative; the shares are worthless.
Still, in the reconstruction plan suggested by the management, the
owners would keep 23 per cent of the company. This is a subsidy from the
taxpayers to the owners, which would not even be suggested in other
countries. Why is this possible in Slovenia? Why should owners (and
management) gain at the expense of the taxpayers?

Sava d.d. is the biggest
owner in Gorenjska Banka and has according to the regulator (The Bank of
Slovenia) a controlling influence of the bank. Gorenjska has given big loans to
Sava d.d., which has brought the bank close to losing its license. According to
the Bank of Slovenia, €13 millions must be injected as fresh equity before
yearend if the bank is to survive. Still the bank has been trusted to
manage the restructuring plan for its de facto parent company, the Sava
d.d. There is a lot of talk in the Slovenian press about conflicts of
interest. But can you find a more prominent example of conflicting interests
than the Sava d.d. management restructuring itself via Gorenjska?

The Sava Turizem is
clearly of national interest. But in the new government policy naming the
relevant companies, it is not the Sava Turizem that has been declared
of national interest, but the Sava d.d. How can a close to bankrupt
holding company, which has obviously lost a lot of money for the taxpayers
and which has under-invested in its tourist assets, be of national
interest?

BAMC has offered a
transparent way of improving the Sava Turizem assets up to European
standards, taking care of the huge Slovenian potential. BAMC has shown
the ability to restructure companies in a number of industries with Cimos
as the most prominent example. The present Sava d.d. management, on the
other hand, has failed to improve its hospitality assets. Still the government
is now proposing to take the Sava assets out of BAMC and let the present
management continue to work. Is this really in the interest of Slovenia –
or just in the interest of the Sava d.d. management?

In the Sava case, given
what I have seen and read, I feel a smell of corruption in every corner.
Is this really what you meant in your campaign when you talked about
fighting corruption? Is this the direction in which you want to lead
Slovenia?